U.S. Judge Extends Ban on Prop. 187 : Courts: Order emphasizes that state cannot begin implementation. L.A. council eases stand on measure.

A court ban on implementing most portions of Proposition 187 was extended to mid-December by a federal district court judge in Los Angeles on Tuesday.

In setting a Dec. 14 hearing on a request for a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer made it clear that the state cannot issue any regulations to enforce the initiative’s cutoffs of public education, health and social welfare services for illegal immigrants before that session.

“Remember, the most important thing of all: There shall be no regulations published or disseminated without the further order of the court,” Pfaelzer said after an hourlong hearing featuring legal jockeying by attorneys in four cases that have been filed to thwart the state initiative.

Meanwhile, a sharply divided Los Angeles City Council softened its stand on the measure, calling on City Atty. James K. Hahn to clarify its impact on the city rather than seek to overturn it.

The council’s 9-5 vote Tuesday came after more than a week of heated phone calls from many constituents who objected to tax money being used to challenge the measure, which was approved by 59% of voters on Nov. 8.

Despite the council action, however, the city will not immediately drop its attempt to join the federal lawsuit before Judge Pfaelzer on the side of the the American Civil Liberties Unnion of Southern California, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and others seeking to overturn the initiative.

That is because Hahn, the city’s chief legal adviser, has said that a legal challenge is the best way for the city to learn how it should administer a host of social service programs not specifically addressed in the measure.

Hahn said Tuesday that he intends to proceed with the city’s effort to intervene in the case. But he said the new council directive will cause him to pursue other avenues for clarifying the law as well. One alternative might be seeking an opinion from the state attorney general’s office, Hahn said.

The council motion approved earlier in the day calls on Hahn “to take only the actions necessary to clarify the legal issues concerning those aspects of Proposition 187 that impact the city’s operations.” That contrasted with the council’s stand the day after the initiative was approved to “set aside the provisions of Proposition 187 . . . by challenging its constitutionality.”

The nine council members who support the proposal said it would make clear that they do not intend to thwart the will of the voters. But the five who voted “no” said it was merely a political expedient that they believed would not change Hahn’s actions.

Hahn said he would drop the challenge if the City Council ordered him to do so. “Under the City Charter, the council directs all litigation,” Hahn said.

City Councilman Joel Wachs, who headed the effort to reverse the city’s stand, said he believes that Hahn will find another way to clarify the law.

Wachs had been supported by council members Laura Chick and Hal Bernson in opposing the council’s previous hard stand against Proposition 187. They were joined Tuesday by six others--John Ferraro, Zev Yaroslavsky, Mark Ridley-Thomas, Marvin Braude, Nate Holden and Rudy Svorinich Jr.--in softening the earlier action.

Sticking by their earlier call for a constitutional challenge were council members Jackie Goldberg, Ruth Galanter, Richard Alarcon, Mike Hernandez and Richard Alatorre. Councilwoman Rita Walters was absent Tuesday but previously voted to challenge the measure.

Last week, U.S. District Judge W. Matthew Byrne Jr. issued a temporary restraining order--which Pfaelzer extended until Dec. 14--halting implementation of all portions of the measure except its stiffened sanctions for the sale and use of fraudulent citizenship documents. Byrne said that some provisions may conflict with federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution.

At Tuesday’s status conference before Pfaelzer, who will continue to handle the case, state Assistant Atty. Gen. Charlton Holland said Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren and Gov. Pete Wilson would be willing to extend Byrne’s restraining order indefinitely while the state prepared regulations for the initiative’s enforcement and made motions to dismiss the case or move it to the state court system.

Pfaelzer, however, noted that the process could take months or years and that a swift decision on a preliminary injunction is proper on a voter-approved measure.

Unlike a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction--designed in this case to block the initiative until its legality is eventually determined--can be appealed to higher courts. Pfaelzer said she would prefer that the appellate process, if needed, be started quickly.

By scheduling a swift preliminary injunction hearing, Pfaelzer will also be ruling on whether the initiative, in the form it was approved, should be enjoined--rather than having to factor in regulations prepared by state agencies to enforce the measure.

In recent interviews, Lungren has indicated that portions of Proposition 187 are vulnerable to legal challenges. State government agencies, at the direction of Wilson, who was a leading proponent of the initiative, would almost certainly seek to prepare regulations designed to overcome those legal questions, analysts say.

The attorneys fighting the measure said after the hearing that they will resist any effort by the attorney general’s office to move the case to the state court system.

“This case raises the most significant federal court issues since Roe vs. Wade,” said Mark D. Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California.